Content:

1. Failed summit
2. Resetting the India-U.S. partnership in uncertain times

 Failed Summit

Context – G-7 at 50: Fragility over Unity

• The G-7, marking its 50th year, was expected to demonstrate global leadership amid escalating global crises.
• Instead, the Kananaskis Summit in Canada showcased a divided and ineffective grouping, unable to address urgent geopolitical conflicts.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)

Practice Question :“India’s participation in fractured platforms like the G-7 must serve strategic ends, not symbolic ones.” Critically examine in the context of the recent G-7 summit held at Kananaskis, Canada.(250 Words)

Global Conflicts Largely Ignored or Mishandled

• No consensus on:
  • Russia-Ukraine war
  • Israel-Iran tensions
  • Israel’s military campaign in Gaza
• G-7 failed to issue a joint statement, falling back on a Chair’s Summary due to U.S. resistance.

U.S. Disruptive Role under Trump

• Donald Trump’s foreign policy pivot:
  • Pro-Russia stance on Ukraine,
  • Push to include Russia and China in a proposed “G9”.
• Blocked anti-Israel language in joint statements.
• Pushed anti-Iran language instead, clashing with other member states.
• Left the summit early, further weakening outcomes.

Canada’s Domestic Political Instability

• Host country Canada faced political transition; Mark Carney’s government still settling in.
• PM Modi’s invitation came just days before the summit — reflects lack of planning and seriousness.

India’s Limited Gains

• Only significant bilateral outcome:
  • Meeting between PM Modi and Canadian PM Mark Carney.
  • Agreement to restore High Commissioners after the Nijjar case rupture.
• However, Canada hasn’t changed stance on Khalistani extremism.

Transnational Repression Statement – Subtle Snub

• G-7’s TNR statement, though not naming countries, is seen as:
  • Indirect criticism of India, along with China, Russia, and Iran.
  • Refers to foreign interference allegations (Canada vs India over Nijjar).

Symbolic Participation, Minimal Strategic Returns

• India hoped for a clear G-7 statement on terrorism – did not happen.
• India’s participation limited to one Outreach Session.
• No tangible multilateral gains from PM Modi’s long travel (11,000+ km).

Key Takeaway – Reassess Strategic Utility

• India must critically evaluate:
  • Is participation in G-7 summits worthwhile without substantive outcomes?
  • Can diplomatic bandwidth be better used in multilateral fora like G-20, BRICS, SCO, where India has more weight?
• Participation in such fractured platforms should serve strategic, not symbolic, ends.

Resetting the India-U.S. partnership in uncertain times

Backdrop: From Promise to Pause

• Just months ago, India–U.S. ties seemed poised for a strategic leap:
  • PM Modi met President Trump, EAM Jaishankar attended the U.S. inauguration.
  • There was bipartisan goodwill and talk of a defining 21st-century partnership.
• Now, a visible drift has set in — not a rupture, but a strategic cooling.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations )

Practice Question : “The structural logic of India-U.S. relations remains strong, but a reset is needed in tone and commitment.” Discuss in the context of emerging bilateral frictions and the way forward.(250 Words)

Emerging Concerns for India

• Diplomatic regression:
  • Trump’s return to “India-Pakistan hyphenation” after Operation Sindoor.
  • Mention of Kashmir mediation and nuclear warnings — tactically outdated.
• Tactical missteps:
  • Hosting Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir → signals ambiguity on counterterrorism.
  • CENTCOM calling Pakistan a “phenomenal partner” irks India.
• Economic discomfort:
  • Discouraging U.S. companies (like Apple) from expanding in India under China-plus-one.
  • H-1B visa fragility undermines tech & innovation collaboration.

Deeper Causes of Drift

1. U.S. Transactionalism vs. Indian Strategic Patience
   1. U.S. seeks quick deals; India prefers layered, civilisational alignment.
   1. Trump’s unpredictability adds volatility to diplomacy.
2. Nostalgia for Pakistan in U.S. security circles
   1. Some U.S. policymakers still overestimate Pakistan’s counterterror value.
3. Communication gap & structural asymmetry
   1. India’s rising influence ≠ institutional presence in Washington.
   1. Misreading of India’s strategic autonomy as fence-sitting.
   1. Critics like Ashley Tellis mischaracterize India’s ambitions as “great-power delusion”.

What India Must Do

• Avoid overreaction — focus on strategic depth over tactical friction.
• Use quiet, calibrated diplomacy:
  • Expand outreach via U.S. Congress, think tanks, diaspora.
• Domestic economic reforms are crucial:
  • For manufacturing credibility & long-term investor confidence.
• Reframe immigration (H-1B) not as a concession, but as mutual innovation potential.

What the U.S. Must Reassess

• Abandon Cold War lenses and stop seeing Indian rise as a threat.
• Support India in regional capacity-building under Indo-Pacific strategy.
• Recognise India’s strategic clarity & sovereign pathway, not demand alignment with U.S. methods.
• Don’t reduce ties to China containment or transactional market logic.

Moral & Strategic Imperatives

• The real strength lies in a shared democratic vision:
  • Like the 2005 Civil Nuclear Deal, bold, trust-based moves can transform geopolitics.
• The true test of the partnership is how it handles crisis, not celebration.
• The turbulence today should be a summons to renewal, not retreat.

Key Takeaway

• The structural logic of India-U.S. ties remains strong.
• What’s needed: a reset of tone, clarity, and mutual commitment — not of fundamentals.
• Both nations must avoid squandering a generational opportunity to shape a democratic, multipolar Asia.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes